AO1 Flashcards
(11 cards)
explain the basis of KE
KE are deontological, meaning the rightness of an act lies in the action being the right thing itself, regardless of consequences (rejects consequentialism). so, things are intrinsically right and wrong.
KE is absolutist rather than relativist (but does have aspects of cultural relativism), meaning x should always be done regardless of circumstances, there is no doubt about what is to be done.
it is also objective.
explain good will
traits such as courage are good, but for all there are situations where we can misuse, like courageously doing the wrong thing.eg. mengele was a pseudo scientist who experimented on dead bodies during the holocaust, he used intelligence but it wasn’t a moral action. kant says that the only thing that is good at all times (truly and intrinsically good) is a ‘good will’. he says “nothing can be possibly be conceived in the world, or even out of it, which can be called good, without qualification, except a good will.”
good will is acting in accordance with duty and only for the sake of duty. this means having a good intention is an intention to do our duty. it’s good because of the intention and desire to do right (‘a sense of good will towards another human being’) (even if nothings achieved).
explain duty
kant didn’t want to make ethical decisions based on experience, but rather through A priori reasoning, arriving at moral principles through reason alone.
having a good intention is an intention to do our duty. it’s good because of the intention and desire to do right (even if nothings achieved). duty is acting morally according to the good regardless of consequences, it’s rational and free from emotion as emotions (sentiment) are objective and obstruct freedom.
e.g. shopkeeper never short changes/ overcharges his customers as honesty is his duty. it may bring positive consequences such as returning customers, but this isn’t the reason for his actions.
kant says our duties as rational people to ourselves include; not lying, not acting in a manner that undervalues yourself, not being greedy, etc. and to other rational people include; 1. to be generous, grateful and sympathetic 2. to respect people as individuals and equals
our actions may be motivated by lots of different things, kant rules out two ‘false intentions’ (1. shouldn’t’ base right and wrong on consequences as these are out of our control. 2. shouldn’t base decisions on our inclinations as our emotions change on a regular basis). one day we will feel like doing right and the next we won’t, so Kant argues what does matter is that we do our duty (the thing we logically work out is right). we should fulfil duty because it is our duty, not for reward.
perfect vs imperfect duties
Kant suggests these two types of duties (perfect- where our maxim cannot be universalised because a logical contradiction would occur if we were to do so e.g. a false promise. imperfect- do not create a logical contradiction but do present us with a situation that no rational person could desire/ will).
how do we work out our duty
categorical vs hypothetical imperatives
by establishing what sort of command, or imperative, lies behind it. when we carry out an action, kant believes we have a maxim (rule we’re following while performing action), in mind. we need to establish whether it’s a HI or a CI, our duty is to act on anything that is a CI.
a HI is a command followed to achieve a desired result, ‘if you desire X, you should do Y’. it is acting to achieve an ends, the action merely being a means. this is immoral to kant.
name and explain the 3 categorical imperatives
A CI is a command that’s good in itself regardless of consequences, and applies to all categories. they’re is no uncertainty, simply instruction (you should do…). it helps determine duty. it’s an imperative of morality that applies to all things, determined based on its three formulations. there are 3 tests/ formulations that, suggested by kant, can be applied to a maxim to see if it’s a CI.
- formula of the law of nature-
‘act only according to that maxim by which you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law’- kant
for an action to be morally valid, all people should act in the same way. we should ask ourselves ‘would it be logical for this action to be universalised?’ and ‘do you rationally want everyone to behave in this way?’ as there cannot be inconsistent rules (e.g. it wouldn’t make sense for everyone to lie so lying is not a CI/ dutiful action). ‘do unto others as you would have them do to you’. \azkant used the axe wielding man and telling the truth as an example, we cannot universalise lying as the world wouldn’t function, so even here we cannot lie. - person as an ends-
‘act in such a way that you treat humanity, both in your own person and in the person of every other human being, never merely as a means, but always at the same time as an end’- kant
we should treat people as an end in themselves; as free rational beings who deserve dignity and respect. we shouldn’t treat them as a means to an end, using them to achieve some sort of purpose. we can use objects/ animals in this way but not people as only humans are capable of rational thought in the eyes of kant. he used the fat man on the bridge version of the trolley problem example to show we shouldn’t allow minority suffering, as that’s using the man as a means if we push him. his ideas also rule out slavery, which theories like utilitarianism do not. - kingdom of ends-
‘act as if (you are) a legislating member in the universal kingdom of ends’- kant
imagine we’re part of the law making group in an imaginary country where everyone always treats others as ends, CIs could be permitted in such a place. this builds of CIs one and two. legislative conditions of kants kingdom- a) laws in universal form, devoid of proper names, places, times ‘anyone in C must do x’. b) rules and members will be ‘abstract from personal differences’, must disregard factors such as race, sex, weight. jim crow laws (like no interracial restaurants in Alabama) are examples that do not follow this, they enforced racial segregation referencing races and places, to remove political and economical gains of black people. using them as a means to white supremacy.
explain the main criticism of kant’s stand point on HIs
morality is a system of hypothetical imperatives.
philosopher Philippa foot challenges Kant’s view morality should be based on a series of CIs. foot focuses on why we should be moral (arguing what’s missing from KE is an adequate explanation of our motives and desires), HIs give us reason to act, yet CIs just tell us we must do a certain thing without accounting for motives.
everything about morality, such as virtues and good character traits, are hypothetical. we shouldn’t be forced to be virtuous, we should be volunteers.
kant on reason and human nature (autonomy)
kant is very much influenced by enlightenment thinking, he’s a key figure. the enlightenment was an intellectual and philosophical movement that valued reason as the source of human knowledge.
KE relies on accurate use of human reason, kant believes in the power of human beings to reason accurately and to reach answers without the need for external authorities. he believes A posteriori knowledge is merely a perception based on senses, but A priori is logic. so, for kant the moral law is a product of reason, as we can rationally understand CIs. he also believes as autonomous beings we are free to make our own decisions concerning following the moral law.
responding to kant on enlightenment, reason, and human nature
kants emphasis on reason is very much in keeping with his time, it is not the only view of human nature available today. philosophers such as Aristotle stressed rational an irrational parts of the soul, and the irrational aspect often associated with emotions seems to be a key aspect of our nature. (especially in work on emotional intelligence). this may suggest the emotional aspects of human nature need to be equally embraced, not repressed.
explain the case for the prosecution
kant is guilty of relying on ideas of God.
in order for absolute and objective moral duties to exist, kant argues 3 things (postulates) must also be true, (but he doesn’t think they’re proved, just assumed practically) they must be assumed for morality to work at all.
SB- ‘supreme good’, the highest happiness. it’s a necessary reward as it otherwise wouldn’t be rational to act morally (e.g. Hitler did bad things but died before punishment, but war heroes die reward less). the existence of the reward ensures justice us served for those who acted dutifully. to get the SB we must follow the CI to know, and then act, on our duty. the reward isn’t available to those who performed ‘good’ actions for any other reason. it isn’t a goal, as if you act to obtain it you will not achieve.
- free will. kant uses ‘ought implies can’ meaning when we talk of moral duties we have to assume the person is able to do the duty in question. if we had no control over our actions, we couldn’t be held accountable for carrying out our duty. someone who acted morally, but not freely, cannot obtain SB.
- existence of an afterlife. we are required to seek the highest good (summum bonum), which occurs when perfect virtue is rewarded by perfect happiness. as ‘ought implies can’ it’s possible to achieve this. yet in this life there are too many situations where good brings about bad, such joy wouldn’t make sense in a mortal world, and a reward only really makes sense after we’ve finished making moral decisions, so sb can be achieved but not in this life. so logically we have to postulate the existence of an afterlife.
- postulate a God exists. if SB occurs and goodness is rewarded, there must be a divine being with the knowledge required to reward the dutiful (omniscient), the reward of pure joy could only really be given by an omnibenevolent being, and by one with the power (omnipotent) to do so. he doesn’t believe this proves a God, rather that we know duty, we know morality should be rewards, and this innate sense of a moral structure for the universe simply points to the existence of a God who can ensure justice, its ‘morally necessary to assume the existence of God’- kant.
- yet this seems to undermine kant’s claim his ethical system is independent of religion and moral duties can be rationally deduced by anyone regardless of religious belief.
explain the case for the defence
kant is not guilty of relying on God.
the prosecution case conflates (treats 2 as 1) 2 separate ethical issues. 1. why we do what we do, concerning motives 2. what do we gain from acting morally, concerning reward.
for kant, our motive has to be that we’re doing our duty because we have worked out that it’s our duty, reward doesn’t come into motivation. reward is merely the benefit/ consequence of acting morally. this separates KE from religious motivation and theories such as NML based on God’s revelation. although God is believed in and may be necessary, it doesn’t affect the motive or the action itself.
